Index of cases

Index of cases relating to gender-based violence against women and girls

These cases are ordered broadly in terms of the identity of the perpetrator – in the first cases relating to violence against women, state agents (police, army officials) were the perpetrators. Subsequently, human rights law developed to encompass violence committed by non-state actors.

The principles of human rights law are now broadly the same: there are duties on all states to prevent gender-based violence, to investigate, prosecute and provide reparation, including compensation and access to services such as medical care, sexual and reproductive health services and housing. These vary according to the type of gender-based violence – such as sexual violence, or violence in the family, or intimate partner violence.

This Index is set out, starting with the overall duties on states to take effective action to prevent, investigate and prosecute all forms of gender-based violence against women and girls, then with two sub-headings for specific obligations relating to a) domestic violence and b) rape and sexual violence. These are further subdivided to highlight the various aspects of how these forms of violence manifest and how they should be addressed. Within each subject heading, the cases are set out chronologically so that developments in the law can be seen.

Violence against women by state agents is a form of torture or ill-treatment

Raquel Martin de Mejía v. Peru (1996) (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights): Ineffective remedies for crimes of rape perpetrated by soldiers violate a state’s obligation to prevent and eliminate torture

Aydin v Turkey (1997) (European Court of Human Rights): Rape of a detainee by an official of the state is a form of torture.

Abramova v Belarus (2011) (CEDAW): Women in detention are entitled to safe and humane conditions that respect the Bangkok Rules and should not be subjected to any form of gender-based ill-treatment.

Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and Interights v Egypt (2011) (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights): States must protect women against sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence experience in the public sphere.

Magdulein Abaida v Libya (2021) (CEDAW): A women’s human rights defender is subjected to torture and ill-treatment, through using gender-based violence and threats by state officials and by unknown persons using online technology.

E.D. and M.D. v Belarus (2024) (CEDAW): Women prisoners should be supervised at all times by women prison officials. Being watched by male prison officers while undressed or using the toilet is a form of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

Violence against women and women’s rights in state custody is a form of torture or ill-treatment

Aydin v Turkey (1997) (European Court of Human Rights): Rape of a detainee by an official of the state is a form of torture.

X v Timor Leste (2018) (CEDAW): When considering detaining or imprisoning breast-feeding mothers, alternatives to custody should be strongly considered as an appropriate option.

Intersecting discrimination

K.K v Russia (2019) (CEDAW); O.N. and D.P. v Russia (2020) (CEDAW); Rosanna Flamer-Caldera v Sri Lanka (2022) (CEDAW); Krikkerik v Russia (2023) (Human Rights Committee): Harassment and violence inflicted on people, especialiy lesbian women, because of their sexual orientation and / or gender identity is a form of gender-based violence.

Sandra Luz Román Jaimes v Mexico (2022) (CEDAW): Multiple and intersecting violations: sexual violence against a girl under 18; domestic violence with a state perpetrator police officer; gender-based forced “disappearance” of a girl under 18.

Maria Elena Carbajal et al v Peru (2024) (CEDAW): Sterilization of Indigenous women without fully informed and free consent is a form of torture or ill-treatment. Indigenous women who were sterilized forcibly experienced intersectional discrimination on the basis of their sex, gender, rural origins and socio-economic status.

Gender-based violence and harassment in public places

Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and Interights v Egypt (2011) (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights): State agents must not commit acts of violence against women in public places, and States must also protect women against sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence experience in the public sphere.

Online harassment

Summary of initial law and practice on online and technology facilitated gender-based violence against women: the second Volodina v Russia case (2021) (European Court of Human Rights) and the EDVAW Platform (2022).

Procedural rights for women’s access to justice for gender-based violence

Isatou Jallow v Bulgaria (2012) (CEDAW): Women should have access to translation for seeking protection orders and for child custody proceedings.

R.P.B v Philippines (2014) (CEDAW): A hearing-impaired survivor should have access to translation to participate in investigations and prosecutions.

López Soto and others v Venezuela (2018) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights): Where the survivor requests it, she should have access to women doctors and other professionals.

Duties on states to prevent violence against women and girls known to be at risk of violence by non-state actors

Gonzalez el al v Mexico (2009) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights): the state must provide transformative reparations for acts of violence against women where it has failed to protect those known to be at risk.

Velásquez Paiz et al v Guatemala (2015) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights) where evidence of widespread violence against women is present, police have a duty to immediately investigate a reported disappearance.

Equality Now and EWLA v Ethiopia (2016) (2016) (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights): States must take action to prevent and protect women from abduction, rape and forced marriage.

López Soto and others v Venezuela (2018) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights): The state is responsible for sexual slavery and torture when it fails to act quickly to rescue a young woman who has been kidnapped by a private citizen; as well as investigating and prosecuting, the state must provide the victim with transformative reparations.

Volodina v Russia (2019) (European Court of Human Rights): No form of domestic violence is “too minor” for the state to address: states must take comprehensive action to prevent, investigate and prosecute violence against women by non-state actors.

Domestic Violence

Killing of an intimate partner/former intimate partner

Şahide Goekce v Austria (2007) (CEDAW): All reports of domestic violence require a diligent response from the State to prevent further violence, and to hold perpetrators to account in criminal law.

Fatma Yildirim v Austria (2007) (CEDAW): Failure to protect woman from domestic violence and responsibility for her death under international human rights law.

Jeiranova v Georgia (2021) (CEDAW): Police must take effective measures to ensure the safety of women and girls who are suspected of transgressing cultural and social expectations around “honour” and therefore at risk of “honour” based violence or killing and should investigate thoroughly rather than deferring to families’ view of what happened.

Criminal and civil law should be enforced in order to protect victims of domestic violence

Maria da Penha v Brazil (2001) (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights): For laws to protect women from violence, they must be effectively implemented.

Opuz v Turkey (2009) (European Court of Human Rights): domestic violence constitutes gender-based discrimination, it is in the public interest to prosecute domestic violence.

X and Y v Georgia (2015) (CEDAW): states must adopt a zero-tolerance policy for all acts of domestic violence against women and children.

O.G. v Russia (2017) (CEDAW): Domestic violence includes threats, harassment and stalking. Even if the victim and the perpetrator have ended their relationship, it is still appropriate to continue to describe violence in this context as domestic violence.

Related to children

J.I. v Finland (2018) (CEDAW) Awarding sole custody of a child to a man convicted of domestic violence crimes against his partner discriminates against women. The best interests and safety of children should be the priority in any decision-making about custody and contact.

Angela González Carreño v Spain (2014) (CEDAW): A context of domestic violence must be considered when assessing the best interests of children, including in decisions on child custody and unsupervised access to children by a parent who has a history of using violence.

Kurt v Austria (2021) (European Court of Human Rights): A perpetrator of domestic violence kills his child at school, despite a protection order being in place to keep the perpetrator away from the family home: did the state fulfil its obligation to protect life?

Access to housing and shelters

AT v Hungary (2005) (CEDAW): Failure to protect women from domestic violence is a form of discrimination and human rights violation: “Women’s human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity cannot be superseded by other rights, including the right to property and the right to privacy”.

L.R. v Moldova (2017) (CEDAW) A perpetrator’s property rights and right to housing should not supersede the victim’s right to physical and mental integrity, and stereotyped, preconceived and discriminatory notions of what constitutes domestic violence should not be used by authorities.

Regarding protection orders

V.K. v Bulgaria (2011) (CEDAW) Requirements for obtaining a protection order should be broad, rather than restrictive, in considering threatening behaviour that would justify an order.

Isatou Jallow v Bulgaria (2012) (CEDAW) Translation should be made available to ensure participation in seeking protection orders.

Jessica Lenahan Gonzales and Others v USA (2011) (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) The American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man is a binding instrument guaranteeing women the equal enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms: Women who have been granted a protection order are entitled to have it effectively enforced.

Malagić v Croatia (2022) (European Court of Human Rights): Dissenting views from the judges: does a former perpetrator’s good behaviour justify the suspension of a protection order, or should a fresh, complete risk assessment be undertaken at the request of the victim?

Woman kills perpetrator in self-defence

X v Timor Leste (2018) (CEDAW): If a victim of domestic violence kills the perpetrator in self-defence, she has a right to fair trial, including being able to plead self-defence, and if she is found to have killed her aggressor in self-defence, she should be acquitted of murder. (see this case also in the section on women’s rights in custody).

Rape and sexual violence

NB: in many of the cases of rape and sexual violence, the victim/survivors were under 18 at the time of the offence, therefore children in international human rights law, and therefore entitled to enhanced protection of their human rights.

Aydin v Turkey (1997)

M.C. v Bulgaria (2003)

Gonzalez et al v Mexico (2009)

T.R.C (representing the child L.C.) v Peru (2011)

S.V.P. v Bulgaria (2012)

R.P.B. v Philippines (2014)

Equality Now and EWLA v Ethiopia (2016)

Requirements of criminal law definitions

M.C. v Bulgaria (2003) (European Court of Human Rights): In this case of a child aged 14 who was raped by adult men, the Court held that definitions crimes of sexual violence should be based on the concept of violation of sexual autonomy. Physical force and threat are included as forms of evidence to show that violation has taken place but should not be the sole basis of criminality.

Karen Tayag Vertido v Philippines (2010) (CEDAW): the definition of the crimes of rape and other sexual violence should have consent at its centre, which should mean “unequivocal and voluntary agreement” free of coercive circumstances. . See Word Doc in email dated 23 July 2025

S.V.P. v Bulgaria (2012) (CEDAW): Where a perpetrator penetrates a child’s anus using his finger, this act should be prosecuted as rape, rather than ‘debauchery’.

Secondary victimisation and stereotyping

M.C. v Bulgaria (2003) (European Court of Human Rights): In this case of a child aged 14 who was raped by adult men, the child M.C. and the accused men had “two irreconcilable versions of the facts [which] obviously called for a context-sensitive assessment of the credibility of the statements made and for verification of all the surrounding circumstances.” The authorities failed to do this, especially because they “attached little weight to the particular vulnerability of young persons and the special psychological factors involved in cases concerning the rape of minors.”

Karen Tayag Vertido v Philippines (2010) (CEDAW): Many myths and stereotypes about the reliability of women and girls who report rape were repeated in the investigation and prosecution of this case: all participants in the criminal justice system should receive training to address discriminatory stereotyping.

López Soto and others v Venezuela (2018) (Inter-America Court of Human Rights): The state is responsible for sexual slavery and torture when it fails to act quickly to rescue a young woman who has been kidnapped by a private citizen; as well as investigating and prosecuting, the state must provide the victim with transformative reparations.

A.F. v Italy (2022) (CEDAW): Investigations and prosecutions of cases of rape and sexual violence can and should be undertaken in ways that respect women’s right to equality before the law, rather than being undermined by gender-based stereotyping.

Survivors of sexual violence have the right to access services, including safe and legal abortion services

LC (represented by TRC) v Peru (2011) (CEDAW): Victims of rape who become pregnant as a result must have prompt access to safe and legal abortion services.

Lucia v Nicaragua (2024) (Human Rights Committee); Susana v Nicaragua, (2025) (Human Rights Committee); Norma v Ecuador (2025) (Human Rights Committee); Fatima v Guatemala (2025) (Human Rights Committee): “They are girls, not mothers” cases. In these four cases, girls in early adolescence (13 or 14 years old) became pregnant following rape. They were denied access to abortion and the perpetrators escaped with impunity – both issues were violations of their human rights.

Rape and sexual violence in conflict

Raquel Martin de Mejía v. Peru (1996) (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights): Ineffective remedies for crimes of rape violate a state’s obligation to prevent and eliminate torture.

Jean-Paul Akayesu (2001) (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda): definition of rape centred on “coercion” and “coercive circumstances” crimes of rape can be crimes against humanity or a form of genocide.

Kunarac, Kovač and Vuković (2002) (International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia): First convictions of rape as a form of torture and sexual enslavement as crimes against humanity.

Brima, Kamara and Kanu (2008) (Special Court for Sierra Leone): Forced marriage during armed conflict can amount to a crime against humanity.

Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (2016) (International Criminal Court): Military commanders or persons acting as military commanders can be held responsible for acts of sexual violence carried out by soldiers under their control.

Aydin v Turkey (1997) (European Court of Human Rights): Rape of a detainee by an official of the state is a form of torture.

S.H. v Bosnia and Herzegovina (2020) (CEDAW): The duty on states to investigate, prosecute and provide reparation for conflict-related sexual violence persists over time because such acts are forms of torture.

Alonzo et al v Philippines (2023) (CEDAW): States have an on-going, unextinguishable duty to provide reparation for women and girls who have been sexually enslaved and tortured during armed conflict, even seven decades after the harm was inflicted

Violations of sexual and reproductive rights are a form of violence

AS v Hungary (2006) (CEDAW) Sterilisation of a Roma woman without full and free consent is a form of violence, as well as a violation of reproductive rights.

Maria Elena Carbajal et al v Peru (2024) (CEDAW): Sterilisation of indigenous women without fully informed and free consent is a form of torture or ill-treatment. Indigenous women who were sterilised forcibly experienced intersectional discrimination on the basis of their sex, gender, rural origins and socio-economic status.